Scott Kuggeleijn sex trial
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="601014" data-time="1469692792">
<div>
<p>Yes, why would that little detail have any significance in a rape case.<br><br>
I'm not judging either of the parties I'm just wondering why they were sleeping in the same bed.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not sure why they shouldnt?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="601015" data-time="1469693056"><p>
That's the thing aye, doesn't matter if she wanted to fool a bit, the minute she says no that's game over...</p></blockquote>
<br>
Exactly. If she says no, don't sleep in the same bed as her. Lying in bed with a raging boner and the woman you're lusting after just a few centimetres away is never a good thing. -
<p>I've had a few occasions like that, I asked, she said no, I turned over and went to sleep...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ended up at a house due to mate shagging the friend, other bird was keen on me, just not on sex straight away..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>another one I woke in the morning and went to sneak out only to realise I had no idea where I was...wasnt much fun.</p> -
<p>I'm always a little bit disappointed (actually, a lot disappointed) when it comes to social media and rape cases. Particularly when it comes to high profile sportsmen, and the general belief that the girl was probably asking for it because who wouldn't want to have sex with a guy who throws a ball around for a living. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Having read Duluth's post earlier, and taking that in, I'll just talk very broadly and background it with the fact that I know nothing about the current case. other than the media, and I'm not talking about that in particular, just addressing points that have been raised. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I've been first on the scene, held (and closed) files, and taken through to court a fair number of rape, sexual assault, or indecency complaints. Unfortunately, all sexual assault cases are not all as simple as "random girl walking home dragged into the bushes by complete stranger and DNA found at the scene". They can be dark and murky affairs, often influenced by alcohol, drugs and emotions. Give me an assault file over a sexual assault file any day. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Asking why a victim didn't cry out for help is like asking why a victim didn't close her legs to stop penetration. It's not just fear, it's thoughts about whether they have put themselves in that situation, whether they have asked for it by wearing a short skirt or flirting (some parts of society still have that mentality), it's fear about what their flatmates might say. Put quite simply, asking why a victim didn't cry out, is like asking why a domestic violence victim doesn't tell their friends where the bruises came from, or why a sexual abuse victim doesn't tell their family that their uncle is abusing them. Put even further into perspective, when the alleged offender is a professional sportsman, can you begin to imagine how much that might skew the balance of power? Internet messageboards will be flooded with accusations of "regrettable sex" or "she was well up for it". In fact, I've seen them a number of times on TSF with various cases in the past. I think us imagining that we'd cry out while being raped is like how we all like to think we'd be a hero in a dangerous situation, but that's not always the case. Until you're in those shoes, you have no idea. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>As I said, I don't know anything about this case other than what I read in the media, I have no idea which version of the story is more correct (both may have genuinely believed what they told the jury). But I'll ask this - would you voluntarily stand up in front of 12 strangers, and the national media, and tell them about a sexual experience you had? We did adult sexual assault training at work a few years back, and the trainer asked me to stand up and tell the room about my last sexual experience. Talk about fucken uncomfortable. I think I made a joke about, "it was dark and I was all alone". But I couldn't imagine what it would be like to get up in front of a jury and tell them about something intensely personal and private, and then know that it is gonna be all over the media, with people throwing accusations and casting doubt from all angles. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, some people do make false rape complaints. It's a fact of life that some people will do that, and I can't advocate enough for harsh sentences for those people, because it makes it so much tougher for genuine victims to come forward and tell their story and think they'll be believed. But just because some people make false rape complaints doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat all allegations of sexual assault as genuine, until proven otherwise. There are some statistics about how only 2 - 5 percent of sexual assaults will be reported, and only a fraction of those will ever get a conviction. That means that a sexual assault victim has something like a 1-2% chance of ever seeing justice done. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the past, (being a happily married man now) if it had got to the point where a girl said she wasn't keen, I imagine I would have just rolled over and gone to sleep? If you get to the point where you feel that you're being "insistent" , are you any better than an ex-car salesman, or a telemarketer who is pushing something onto someone that they clearly don't want? When that something is sexual intercourse, you are treading a very, very fine line. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Food for thought anyway. I have no idea how this case will play out, but it's not as black and white as we in our armchairs might imagine...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="601098" data-time="1469731409">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, some people do make false rape complaints. It's a fact of life that some people will do that, and I can't advocate enough for harsh sentences for those people, because it makes it so much tougher for genuine victims to come forward and tell their story and think they'll be believed. But just because some people make false rape complaints doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat all allegations of sexual assault as genuine, until proven otherwise. There are some statistics about how only 2 - 5 percent of sexual assaults will be reported, and only a fraction of those will ever get a conviction. That means that a sexual assault victim has something like a 1-2% chance of ever seeing justice done. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Can you expand on your belief that all accusations of rape should be seen as genuine? Do you mean they should be taken seriously? Or the alleged victim believed until proven otherwise?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Because I have serious issues with the latter... and will happily debate it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And do you have a source for claim that only 2-5% of sexual assaults are reported? This area is full of misleading studies and blatantly dishonest claims. Another popular one is the the amount of females that will be a victim of sexual assault. In that case it is a case of 'if a lie is repeated enough it becomes the truth'. I will happily provide more information on this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for your assertion that if 2-5% of rape cases are prosecuted, that does not mean only 1-3% see justice.. unless you equate justice being done with a conviction... which to be honest does seem to be the gist of that part of your post. If you trust your judicial system, then if 2-5% (A figure I would like to see verified) are prosecuted then 2-5% see justice done, a jury finding someone innocent is still justice done.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="601098" data-time="1469731409">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, some people do make false rape complaints. It's a fact of life that some people will do that, and I can't advocate enough for harsh sentences for those people, because it makes it so much tougher for genuine victims to come forward and tell their story and think they'll be believed. But just because some people make false rape complaints doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat all allegations of sexual assault as genuine, until proven otherwise.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>On your first point above, one of the reasons here in Queensland the vast majority of people who make false rape complaints are not prosecuted is because it is believed the prosecution of these people will deter genuine victims from making complaints. The fear of getting prosecuted if you are not believed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't know how things work in the NZ police, but I suspect things would be very similar to over here. The first thing you do as a cop when receiving any complaint is ask yourself "Did this really happen?" Rape/sexual complaints are no different. When I hand over sexual complaint reports to the coffee drinking 'Cant I'm Busy' crowd the first question I always seem to get is "So is this a load of crap or what?" It sounds bloody wrong to start off an investigation with that attitude but that attitude has come from somewhere. Maybe the attitude has evolved because other police have had similar experiences to me and Mrs Crazy Horse (she is also a cop) - with 25 years front line experience between us we have been involved in very few sexual assault/rape cases that have made it to court. The vast majority end up going nowhere. Some are blatantly false, some are 'he said, she said' and some are withdrawn by the victim for reasons she will only know.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't have any internet links, but research conducted by a Charles McDowell and recorded in the Forensic Science Digest Vol 11, No 4 December 1985, suggests that up to 60% of rape complaints are false. The research started by reviewing 556 cases of alleged rape in the US airforce between certain times. 27% of the women eventually admitted they had lied. The airforce then got three independent reviewers to review all 556 cases. They identified 25 criteria common to all the cases in which the women admitted they lied and made comparisons to the other rape cases. Upon reviewing all the cases the reviewers concluded 60% of the rape complaints were false. The reviewers all worked independently of each other and it is only the individual cases in which all three reviewers concluded were false that are included in the 60% figure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It was then thought the results may be peculiar to the airforce so a review was conducted of rape complaints in major police forces throughout the USA. The review returned the same results. 60% of rape complaints were likely to be false. Politicians feared a backlash so pressure was applied and eventually the results were published leaving out the exact police jurisdictions that were reviewed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't know how competent the research was but that to me that was interesting. If the truthfulness of rape allegations can be questioned, what about other allegations? Domestic Violence is an issue that springs to mind that all is not what we are led to believe, but that is another topic.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="601142" data-time="1469746080">
<div>
<p>On your first point above, one of the reasons here in Queensland the vast majority of people who make false rape complaints are not prosecuted is because it is believed the prosecution of these people will deter genuine victims from making complaints. The fear of getting prosecuted if you are not believed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't know how things work in the NZ police, but I suspect things would be very similar to over here. The first thing you do as a cop when receiving any complaint is ask yourself "Did this really happen?" Rape/sexual complaints are no different. When I hand over sexual complaint reports to the coffee drinking 'Cant I'm Busy' crowd the first question I always seem to get is "So is this a load of crap or what?" It sounds bloody wrong to start off an investigation with that attitude but that attitude has come from somewhere. Maybe the attitude has evolved because other police have had similar experiences to me and Mrs Crazy Horse (she is also a cop) - with 25 years front line experience between us we have been involved in very few sexual assault/rape cases that have made it to court. The vast majority end up going nowhere. Some are blatantly false, some are 'he said, she said' and some are withdrawn by the victim for reasons she will only know.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't have any internet links, but research conducted by a Charles McDowell and recorded in the Forensic Science Digest Vol 11, No 4 December 1985, suggests that up to 60% of rape complaints are false. The research started by reviewing 556 cases of alleged rape in the US airforce between certain times. 27% of the women eventually admitted they had lied. The airforce then got three independent reviewers to review all 556 cases. They identified 25 criteria common to all the cases in which the women admitted they lied and made comparisons to the other rape cases. Upon reviewing all the cases the reviewers concluded 60% of the rape complaints were false. The reviewers all worked independently of each other and it is only the individual cases in which all three reviewers concluded were false that are included in the 60% figure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It was then thought the results may be peculiar to the airforce so a review was conducted of rape complaints in major police forces throughout the USA. The review returned the same results. 60% of rape complaints were likely to be false. Politicians feared a backlash so pressure was applied and eventually the results were published leaving out the exact police jurisdictions that were reviewed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't know how competent the research was but that to me that was interesting. If the truthfulness of rape allegations can be questioned, what about other allegations? Domestic Violence is an issue that springs to mind that all is not what we are led to believe, but that is another topic.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>
What a great post, love to see actual reports being quoted. As you say these studies can and should be critiqued, but at least it actually has a basis to start with.... rather than vague references to studies that may or may not exist and may or may not have been completely misrepresented to show men in as evil a light as possible.</p> -
<p>There are people who withdraw accusations because they either lose faith in the system, or no longer feel capable of going through the process. Regardless, if your default position is the claimant is lying, or shouldn't be believed, then you're hardly likely to be in a position to adequately pursue the case.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What I believe would be a good change to the current adversarial nature is that neither party is publicly named until the outcome of the trial. This would help alleviate the possible character assassination from a malicious accusation.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="601149" data-time="1469748956">
<div>
<p>There are people who withdraw accusations because they either lose faith in the system, or no longer feel capable of going through the process. <strong>Regardless, if your default position is the claimant is lying, or shouldn't be believed, then you're hardly likely to be in a position to adequately pursue the case.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>What I believe would be a good change to the current adversarial nature is that neither party is publicly named until the outcome of the trial. This would help alleviate the possible character assassination from a malicious accusation.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>although on the flipside, if you are likely to believe things blindly you are more likely to ignore facts that may not quite stack up.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="601149" data-time="1469748956">
<div>
<p>There are people who withdraw accusations because they either lose faith in the system, or no longer feel capable of going through the process. Regardless, if your default position is the claimant is lying, or shouldn't be believed, then you're hardly likely to be in a position to adequately pursue the case.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What I believe would be a good change to the current adversarial nature is that neither party is publicly named until the outcome of the trial. This would help alleviate the possible character assassination from a malicious accusation.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agreed however... </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the only default positions should be that all allegations are taken seriously whilst also preserving the innocent until proven guilty bedrock.</p> -
<p>I'm not advocating that a default position should exist either way; let the facts determine what happened. Obviously, with experience an investigator will feel one side is more likely to be true. Much as when I watch news reports from family members and immediately think to myself "<em>you're lying, you fucking did it</em>". But then someone's fate isn't in my biased hands.</p>
-
<p>I am def advocating a default position, because it is not until a trial that the facts are known, and then how those facts are weighted depends on the presumption.</p>
<p>Innocent until proven guilty is one of the things that I feel truly passionate about. The day we move away form that is a VERY bad day.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Innocent until proven guilty and letting the facts speak are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are not even related.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="601020" data-time="1469693945">
<div>
<p><strong>I've had a few occasions like that, I asked, she said no, I turned over and went to sleep...</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ended up at a house due to mate shagging the friend, other bird was keen on me, just not on sex straight away..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>another one I woke in the morning and went to sneak out only to realise I had no idea where I was...wasnt much fun.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That's called being married....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="601117" data-time="1469737452">
<div>
<p>Can you expand on your belief that all accusations of rape should be seen as genuine? Do you mean they should be taken seriously? Or the alleged victim believed until proven otherwise?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Because I have serious issues with the latter... and will happily debate it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And do you have a source for claim that only 2-5% of sexual assaults are reported? This area is full of misleading studies and blatantly dishonest claims. Another popular one is the the amount of females that will be a victim of sexual assault. In that case it is a case of 'if a lie is repeated enough it becomes the truth'. I will happily provide more information on this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for your assertion that if 2-5% of rape cases are prosecuted, that does not mean only 1-3% see justice.. unless you equate justice being done with a conviction... which to be honest does seem to be the gist of that part of your post. If you trust your judicial system, then if 2-5% (A figure I would like to see verified) are prosecuted then 2-5% see justice done, a jury finding someone innocent is still justice done.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Sorry, I wrote that post at about 2am, after a few beers, so I couldn't really be arsed scouring the internet for links. Those statistics were from memory, based on research online that I had done of other studies for a uni paper I wrote a few years back. They are probably 'give or take' a little bit, but my general gist was that in regards to sexual assault complaints, only a very minor percentage of them result in the conviction of the offender. There are a heap of reasons for that, but most commonly:</p>
<p> </p>
<ul><li>Except for stranger rape cases (masked intruder, dragged into bushes in public place etc) they often involve the alleged victim and offender knowing one another, which makes things murky and puts strong social dynamics into play, particularly when it happens within groups of friends, so victims either don't want to go ahead with complaints, or else you get differing accounts, depending on which side of the net a witness is sitting on</li>
<li>Alcohol is more often than not involved, which makes memories hazy and opens up a complainant to being slaughtered on the stand for being too drunk</li>
<li>They may be historic, therefore evidence has been lost or the complainant just wants to have their complaint noted and then get some appropriate help (counselling etc)</li>
<li>A victim often just wants to hear her story heard and have a medical check up to make sure she will have no ongoing problems (this is often the case in cases like the one before the court at the moment where it involves alcohol and he said/she said circumstances)</li>
<li>They may involve a family member and the victim doesn't want to tear the family apart, or is getting a lot of pressure on them from the extended family to withdraw the complaint.</li>
<li>Often they just don't want the trauma of having to relive everything 2 years down the track. We had some really cut and dry cases with great evidence, even to the point of confessions or admissions made by offenders that never made it to court, for that very reason. I could name at least 10 offenders that I know of from my time in the job, who would have received lengthy sentences had it gone to court, but the victim refused to go ahead with the case. So you multiply that out across all of NZ and it's a bit scary to think who is out there.</li>
</ul><p>As Crazy Horse said, and Mrs AWL is a cop as well so I speak from her experience too, that very few do make it to court for those reasons, so it's not like the Police are wandering around blindly believing victims at the expense of dragging a clearly innocent man through the mud just to make the victim feel better. Everything is subject to the Solicitor General's prosecution guidelines, where something shouldn't be taken to court if there isn't a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction. If cases are taken to court that clearly have no merit and everything goes pear-shaped, the offender is legally able to seek costs against the Crown, for expenses and damages which can get pretty expensive. Therefore, there is a robust process in place to ensure that only evidentially sufficient cases get before a jury. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>To clarify, when I say all cases should be treated as genuine, I mean that in the past (80's, 90's), females would come in an make a complaint of rape and the salty old Detectives would take one look at it, or listen to the story and decide that the complainant was full of shit, or was drunk, scantily dressed and asking for it and that was that. So now, if a person comes in and makes a complaint, a full statement will still be taken, scene examinations will still take place, medical examinations of the complainant will still take place, even if the complainants story doesn't seem to stack up. Sexual assault files don't get closed down early just based on a hunch or an opinion. With the right investigation (phone records, talking to witnesses, looking at CCTV) a proper false complaint can be disproved really easily. I never went out of my way to take shit or cases with insufficient evidence to court, nor did any other cop I knew. There was very little point in doing that when there was a huge backlog of cases with evidential sufficiency sitting on my desk waiting to be investigated. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only once these things have been investigated will the decision be made on whether it is likely a false complaint. That doesn't mean that the alleged offender will be blindly hauled over the coals, in fact, often we never even interviewed to the alleged offender if we could disprove the allegation by other means, because there was no point in upsetting someone unnecessarily if something clearly didn't happen. It might have been as simple as just going to see the guy, letting them know the gist of the complaint, but that we had disproved it, and asking them what their thoughts were on further action against the complainant in regards to false complaints. Absolutely the offenders were presumed innocent until guilty.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Cops aren't man-hating feminists who want to string all men up by the balls, and me particularly so (as any of the BOP Mafia ferners who I met a few years back might be able to attest to), but treating a rape complainant genuinely and decently until there is proof that he/she is lying is just common sense I would have thought. That is quite different to presuming an offender is guilty, it's more that the complainant has genuine intentions for sitting in front of me and telling a complete stranger about her last sexual event . When I worked crime squad, in any given weekend shifts, we'd get up to half a dozen sexual assault complaints come across our desk. This got even worse with the advent of apps like Tinder, where we got quite a few "she flirted with me online so I assumed she was well up for it" type explanations. We had plenty of jobs where the boyfriend or significant other would drag the "victim" in to the station saying she had been raped by a guy she met in town, but when the door closed, she had just cheated on him, she didn't want to make a complaint and had never wanted to come into the station in the first place. More often than not, people who made the clearly false complaints of rape (and other crimes) were suffering a tonne of other problems as well, so prosecution wasn't ever taken up until they became repeat offenders. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So in short, sexual assault cases are a minefield, hence why I specialised in drugs and organised crime...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="601179" data-time="1469755652">
<div>
<p>That's called being married....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I said a few...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="601176" data-time="1469755409">
<div>
<p>I am def advocating a default position, because it is not until a trial that the facts are known, and then how those facts are weighted depends on the presumption.</p>
<p>Innocent until proven guilty is one of the things that I feel truly passionate about. The day we move away form that is a VERY bad day.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Innocent until proven guilty and letting the facts speak are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are not even related.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Absolutely, it's the cornerstone of the justice system, right? I've had friends who have had false allegations levelled at them for sexual assault and domestic violence and it was bloody unpleasant watching it all unfold. Thankfully, it was properly investigated and found to be false. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>One of the biggest problems we used to face was that we'd go to speak to an alleged offender, (for any sort of offence, not just sexual) their lawyer would advise them not to make a statement, so we'd have to go with what we had in front of us, and the facts we had in putting together a prosecution case, or otherwise. Essentially you're having to make decisions with only 80% of the information available in front of you, because the other 20% doesn't want to speak to you. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>We'd get to trial 18 months down the track and offender would take the stand, give a completely plausible and reliable account of what happened and they'd be rightly acquitted. The sticking point being that had they given that account to us when we asked to speak to them, it would have never made it to court.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="601176" data-time="1469755409">
<div>
<p>I am def advocating a default position, because it is not until a trial that the facts are known, and then how those facts are weighted depends on the presumption.</p>
<p>Innocent until proven guilty is one of the things that I feel truly passionate about. The day we move away form that is a VERY bad day.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Innocent until proven guilty and letting the facts speak are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are not even related.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not suggesting the legal system change from the presumption of innocence.</p>